Swad Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004409.php This is the absolute dumbest thing. Ever. RIAA = Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouch Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 They need a good kick up their Recording Industry @ss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrJägermeister Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Who the f**k is the RIAA? Is it a sect (we have too much of them)? I don't know them so it doesn't concern me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbjonas Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 How is that (ripping to my PC) any different than Dupe-ing a CD to a Cassette tape? I always did that in the 80's and early 90's and it was totally fine. Considered 'personal use' in fact. I owned the CD, and made tapes to play in the car and old school Walkman... Stupid RIAA. Retarded Industry of American Audio in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
U.C. Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 For once i am glad about living in india Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domino Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 And what about StreamRipper? I guess they'll warrant that "Not fair use" as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kikos Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 The RIAA's definition of "fair use" is: Loss to RIAA's profit because of your conduct that would eliminate the need for you to buy the music you already own (or licensed to use) in another (superior or inferior) format Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metrogirl Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 First, they have to catch you ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Bond Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 Ahh....it's good to be a Canuck Hell...even downloading music is still legal here. I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac OSX Coder Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 Technically You can make 7 copies of your music, if you own the CD or music file you LEGALLY bought. I personlly don't support illegal music downloading. MrBond, you lucky canadian! (no offense!) I hate you and your legal illegally music downloading! No wait that didn't make any sense... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OryHara Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 The RIAA's definition of "fair use" is: Loss to RIAA's profit because of your conduct that would eliminate the need for you to buy the music you already own (or licensed to use) in another (superior or inferior) format How do they loose a profit? Did I come to them, take their studio, and leave them with nothing? What makes them think they already HAD that song/album sold? Do they think I was gonna buy it? What if I din't? Could they sue me for not buying something from them? I don't like certain songs, are they going to sue me for not buying them? Nothing is stolen unless something is taken from them at their loss and my gain. If I download a song, they loose nothing, because I would not have bought it anyway. If someone buys a Dell should I sue Dell because the person din't buy a computer from me? How does that harm my profit? If someone resells a computer I sold them, should I sue the person for reselling the machine I sold them? Did I loose anything? If so, what did I loose? (Im not arguing, for all I know you may agree.) Just trying to bring a thought onboard the discussion. The RIAA is pretty damn ignorant. Others suffer because of their ignorance, and arrogance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouch Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 @OryHara - Finally someone who understands the difference between copyright infringement and theft. Don't you find those trailers about "not stealing movies" annoying, everytime i see one i feel compelled to yell at the tv - "Its NOT STEALING" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metrogirl Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Confession - I don't see those trailers on DVDs. I rip them right out. Why? Because I live in two countries and buy DVDs in each. My US DVD player can't be fixed to play Region 2 discs even though I bought them legally. Also, it upsamples non-copyright DVDs for great quality, but if the copyright flag is set (most commercial DVDs are) it refuses to upsample because of some manufacturer's agreement with the MPAA therefore I get lower quality than I've paid for. So I rip every DVD I buy, stripping all those FBI warnings, Macrovision, copyright flags, trailers and region coding in the process. I keep the original in a paper sleeve and put the rip in the case. No-one but us benefits, I don't sell them or anything like that, but the law would say I'm a criminal nevertheless. So of course I always do this when I'm in a country where it isn't illegal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouch Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 But then you have to import them back into the countries your living in which presumably breaks the law anyway...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metrogirl Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Customs haven't yet learned how to examine a portable hard drive... Burning comes later! Where's the tongue-in-cheek smiley? Besides, I look so innocent... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrunner Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004409.php This is the absolute dumbest thing. Ever. RIAA = Oh my, you mean no one is taking the side of the recording industry? What a surprise! Actually their position is not as far fetched as you might think: "Nor does the fact that permission to make a copy in particular circumstances is often or even routinely granted, necessarily establish that the copying is a fair use when the copyright owner withholds that authorization. In this regard, the statement attributed to counsel for copyright owners in the MGM v. Grokster case is simply a statement about authorization, not about fair use." I can understand that an artist who created and copyrighted a work of art would not grant someone the right to duplicate such an object when the duplicate is so similar if not identical to the original. Imagine if you can produce a Picasso or Monet with ease which is indistingushible from the original. That is a freightening prospect for the artist, don't you think? Anyway, that is just a thought. I am not in the entertainment/recording industry and have no interest in RIAA's position at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OryHara Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 @OryHara - Finally someone who understands the difference between copyright infringement and theft. Don't you find those trailers about "not stealing movies" annoying, everytime i see one i feel compelled to yell at the tv - "Its NOT STEALING" Yes, I do. I hate those things, and the damned annoying adverts telling me not to 'steal' movies. Which is just a blatent attempt at brainwashing. I usually let MacTheRipper handle those. I din't pay $20 to watch commercials. I paid $20 to watch the movie, and make copys for my friends. I don't believe in Copyright though. As you will see from my website. http://www.linuxgod.net/ which is marked as CopyLeft. Which is a defiant view of Copyright as a whole. I own the images on my site, but after they enter your hard drive, as cache, or your RAM as cache, they are YOUR images as well. I own the COPY of the image that is on my site, and YOU own the copy on your hard drive. After you visit my site, I no longer have a Monopoly over that image. Copyright assumes that you don't own anything, even though you have paid for it. Its a scam scheme. You pay them money, and you get nothing but the ability to USE their property in return. Like renting a house. You don't own that house, but if you cause damage to you, you must pay for it. You cannot damage Copyright material, as for it does not exist. Ony magnetic bumps, and electrical impulses are the result of the material, but not the actual meterial itself, as for it does not exist but in your mind. Copyright is a false business model made up by an Industrialized Economy based on commercialism, and capitolism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyrana Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Read the 4th item in clause 107 of US copyright law (pertains to fair use): http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Since one would already own the work, you aren't impacting value. At least that is how I see it. This is in regards to me copying a CD to my iPod, for example. How about this from the RIAA FAQ?: http://www.riaa.com/issues/ask/default.asp#stand If you choose to take your own CDs and make copies for yourself on your computer or portable music player, that's great. It's your music and we want you to enjoy it at home, at work, in the car and on the jogging trail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouch Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 I wouldn't go so far as to say i am against copyright altogether - i certainly don't think anyone should be allowed to profit from a copy of someone elses work. But there are definitely situations where intellectual property laws are just lame. Particularly this nonesense about pharmaceuticals patenting protiens from the human genome (i'm not a scientist that may not be what they are doing but it was something like that) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
munky Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Besides, I look so innocent... Typical! Me being a hairy-arsed highlander would get stopped and body-cavity-searched no doubt, but you just bat your eyelids and get away with it. What happened to this equality thing I heard so much about? That reminds me... i've never been so nervous in my life as the time I went through immigration in Kuala Lumpur, right under the sign "Penalty for Drug Trafficking in Malaysia is Death", and wondering if i'd left my grass in the trousers I had on, or if i'd left it at home... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OryHara Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Read the 4th item in clause 107 of US copyright law (pertains to fair use):http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Since one would already own the work, you aren't impacting value. At least that is how I see it. This is in regards to me copying a CD to my iPod, for example. How about this from the RIAA FAQ?: http://www.riaa.com/issues/ask/default.asp#stand If you choose to take your own CDs and make copies for yourself on your computer or portable music player, that's great. It's your music and we want you to enjoy it at home, at work, in the car and on the jogging trail. Why should we take into account what those Cyber Terrorists say anyway? The RIAA group has been infecting people's Windows machines with viruses for the past 5 years or more. Sony's XCP software, and those lame little trojans. Nail.exe started out as an RIAA trojan. Come on. The RIAA is a criminal group, just like Microsoft. The RIAA is guilty for Extortion, Price Fixing, breaking Sherman laws, Anti-Trust laws, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Acts of Cyber Terrorism, deniing people their Fair Use Rights, and too many others to list. If they ever came after me, that would be one of the many nails I drive in their coffins. The RIAA can rot in hell for all I care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyrana Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 Hey, I totally agree, OryHara. I'm just saying that I think they are in fact, incorrect in how they interpret copyright law. And in addition, they themselves are obviously hypocrites or change their mind as they see fit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Bond Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 That reminds me... i've never been so nervous in my life as the time I went through immigration in Kuala Lumpur, right under the sign "Penalty for Drug Trafficking in Malaysia is Death", and wondering if i'd left my grass in the trousers I had on, or if i'd left it at home... Rofl... There's different sides to copyright, as I see it, and some of these sides do make sense, while others are just plainly stupid. Copyright being used to protect one's intellectual property is fair. Why should I work hard to create something, and have it distributed to everyone for free, with no money going to me? On the other hand, the recording industry seems to simply be after total control over how, and when we acquire and listen to our music. To them, it isn't about protecting the rights of their artists, but trying to squeeze as much money out of us as possible. Really, it's just plain stupid. They're essentially trying to force us to by a different format of music for each device we want to listen to it with. I mean, why the hell should I by a CD to listen to in my CD player, and then the same MP3's so I can use it on my MP3 player? It just makes no damn sense... Metrogirl, I do exactly the same thing. It really pisses me off when I have this HDMI DVD player, and matching HDTV, and then the DVD quality just doesn't equal what it should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OryHara Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Rofl... There's different sides to copyright, as I see it, and some of these sides do make sense, while others are just plainly stupid. Copyright being used to protect one's intellectual property is fair. Why should I work hard to create something, and have it distributed to everyone for free, with no money going to me? On the other hand, the recording industry seems to simply be after total control over how, and when we acquire and listen to our music. To them, it isn't about protecting the rights of their artists, but trying to squeeze as much money out of us as possible. Really, it's just plain stupid. They're essentially trying to force us to by a different format of music for each device we want to listen to it with. I mean, why the hell should I by a CD to listen to in my CD player, and then the same MP3's so I can use it on my MP3 player? It just makes no damn sense... Metrogirl, I do exactly the same thing. It really pisses me off when I have this HDMI DVD player, and matching HDTV, and then the DVD quality just doesn't equal what it should be. Ive been using Linux since 1996. The philosophy behind Linux is that you OWN NOTHING, and EVERYTHING. I strongly believe this, even in my self owned business. Once I put something on a customers's machine its THEIRS. I have absolutely NO RIGHT to tell them what to do with it, and I cannot tell them what they can, and cannot do with THEIR OWN MACHINE. If they want to give my software to their neighbor, they can, thats their right, its on their machine, they can do with it what they want. What if copyright applied to cars. We would all be in a load of {censored} now wouln't we? What? You can't put that Delta V6 Tiburon motor in that Sonata? Same motor!!! Oh, yea, that chip won't let you do it !! Change the f***ing sensors, and replace the ECU. Problem solved. Sounds stupid doesn't it? Some people don't believe in copyright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lane Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 I find it funny that some people don't believe in copyright... yeah there are problems with the current way its enforced but people need incentives to keep inventing and engineering. I stand firmly on 200 years of progress based on the idea of owning ideas as the principal of progress. Blame the RIAA and MPAA for fighting a ludicrous war on their customers (because they are) but don't treat copyright's as unimportant or evil. On a side note to support this view you can look at the lightning rod's history; Ben Franklin invented it and could have pantented it to sell for profit at high margin. This great man who could see the life saving benefits of everyone having his idea to use chose instead to give the work he had done away and put it in every newspaper in the country to help others get them installed at as little a cost as possible. Sometimes change is inevitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts